Greens will never say "sorry"; so why should anyone who has ever flown vote for them again?

Predictably, Green Party poster-boy Rupert Read leaps on the bandwagon and backs the borderline-illegal behaviour at Stanstead today.

I feel very very sorry for the passengers whose flights have been cancelled by this irresponsible action. The Green lobby needs to campaign through the democratic process and legitimate, peaceful means rather than this.

For those people hoping to see family at Christmas, travelling on business or going home after studying in the UK, this is not something they can forgive.

This total disregard for travellers and their lives says a lot about the protestors and the contempt in which they hold people. I hope the leaders of this protest - and their supporters - apologise for their frankley quite distrurbing and very disruptive actions, but I very much doubt they will.

And if you have ever flown - think on ... this could have been your flight. How would you have felt? And it could yet be any flight you take in the future.

Any party which supports this doesn't deserve support at the ballot box - because they themselves ignore the ballot box as a means of achieveing their aims.

"That" debate in council

The last few days have been hectic so I haven't even had time to blog the full council meeting which happened last Tuesday; and with it, "that" debate on Norwich Airport.

I was worried that blogging about it a few days later I might be squeezed out of the post-debate analysis, but seen as the man of the moment hasn't blogged about it himself, I may have gotten away with it. The night started with a group of protestors outside City Hall and soon enough Leader of the Council Steve Morphew was batting away public questions about the subject. Why they had to ask public questions with a debate already lined up was beyond me, but seen as it is the usual Green Party crowd (and, yes, living with a Green Councillor does count as being part of the crowd) then at least they won't be able to ask another question for 6 months. Morphew certainly didn't hold back with his support for the airport and I think facing the green-mob made a strong line easier than otherwise it might have been.

When the debate finally came, I spoke at length about the challenges facing the aviation industry in general and Norwich Airport in particular. I challenged other parties to recognise 2 issues; firstly the economic impact of the airport on the City. Also the liberty issue; would we really want to start preaching to people about where, when and how they take their holidays? Both Labour and LibDem Leaders agreed with my interpretation of the issues and made sound speeches supporting the Airport.

Then the Greens stepped forward ... when I laid down the motion I knew that the Greens wouldn't be happy (they want fewer and fewer flights, leading one day to nil I'm sure) so unlike the A11 motion where their opposition took me by surprise (I thought Ramsay's political radar would have been better) I knew what was coming. Or did I?

After his woeful ranting performance last month, Cllr Read didn't lead off for the Greens. Despite being Transport Spokesman that job was left to Cllr Gledhill - perhaps Ramsay thougth better of letting Read loose on the public again? Well, Gledhill surprised us all by being absolutely attrocious. Now I like Gledhill and think he is passionate about his issues; but my fear he may do a hatchett job was short lived. His speech was dull, badly scripted and hardly structured at all - talking from behind a list of stats rarely works. Monotone and without any real themes; I'm afraid it was a very poor job. But then they started to swop notes and let a new Councillor take over for another 3 minutes of the same. Cllrs Jeraj, Makof and Bearman all did the same (although Janet's story about her holiday did lift the gloom somewhat). And then stepped up dear Cllr Read ... I think more annoyed about the pisspoor efforts of his own party.

However, Morphew has taken away his legs before he had got up - by quoting back at Read something he said a few years back saying it was none of his concern if the airport closed. So Read had to start off by justifying his own position. Ramsay even tried coming in to say he was confused by the motion, before being rebutted by others who said the only confusion was the Green position.

Of course we won the vote but the debate was rather bitty and lacked the spark which some has predicted. The three major parties all stayed their ground and instead of letting the Greens assault our walls, we went out and met them on their ground. The Green response was not good and despite using around half their group to speak their dependence on stats and "evidence" let them down. They didn't have an alternative to sell (they couldn't, for example, say what capacity they thought the airport should have) and didn't speak with the passion which you might imagine. No matetr what other councillors said, they got their heads down and stuck to the script. No bouncing off their opposition, too rigid and too badly prepared.

So a good motion passed by a Council now determined to see the Airport work, but the debate lacked spark.

Norwich International: Why the development charge isn't working

The MD of Norwich International will no doubt get some positive coverage in the next few days as his controversial charge to leave Norwich has now raised £1m and they can start splashing our cash. The spending projects include improving safety and, most importantly, extra investment into the fire services. This is good stuff, obviously, and we should welcome this sort of investment. However, what is curious is the total rejection of the idea that the development charge is far from developing the airport, it is holding it back.

I say this for 2 key reasons; Airport bosses claim that the charge is, at least, upfront open and honest. They claim that other airports hide their charges on things like parking, trolley hire and the like. This really doesn't stand up to scrutiny. In all those things, the consumer has the choice; airport parking is a vicious market where prices are being driven down - when we parked at Stanstead going to NY in May Half-Term we got an excellent deal by choosing a company outside of the airport. Similarly if I don't like the cost of trolley hire, I choose to pull my own luggage. Simple. However the Norwich development charge doesn't give you that choice; you have to pay it in order to board your flight. Open and honest it may be, but so too is it unavoidable unlike all of the other charges at other airports.

And secondly there is the total lack of understanding of human nature. People hate paying this so-called charge (we call it a tax) upfront because you physically see the money changing hands - on top of the existing airport tax we pay on the ticket cost. Travelling from Norwich is expensive but it's convenient. They should have a cornered market for the airport here in Norfolk, but still the chopping and changing of flight routes and the development charge drive people to Stanstead, Luton and even Heathrow.

Norwich Airport is a fantastic resource and I support it 100%, but whereas it should have cornered market and a great profitable business, it has succeeded in antagonising large sections of its natural market - people in Norwich and Norfolk. I wish that the MD would think again about this.